VOLKER LANDWEHR 7j43k The only facts I'm aware of that WE (the public) don't have is the identity and work history of the engineer, and the data from the cameras. The locomotive crew's work history is in the same report. Quote: The 55-year-old engineer had been working for Amtrak since May 2004 and had been promoted to engineer in August 2013. The other crewmember in the cab of the locomotive was a 48-year-old “qualifying” conductor who was being familiarized with the territory. This conductor had been working for Amtrak since June 2010 and had been promoted to conductor in November 2011.Regards, Volker
7j43k The only facts I'm aware of that WE (the public) don't have is the identity and work history of the engineer, and the data from the cameras.
The locomotive crew's work history is in the same report.
Quote: The 55-year-old engineer had been working for Amtrak since May 2004 and had been promoted to engineer in August 2013. The other crewmember in the cab of the locomotive was a 48-year-old “qualifying” conductor who was being familiarized with the territory. This conductor had been working for Amtrak since June 2010 and had been promoted to conductor in November 2011.Regards, Volker
"Working for Amtrak since May 2004"? In what capacity?
Did this person display the acumen and cognitive skills to be considered for the position of locomotive engineer?
Who interviewed this person as a candidate and what were their qualifications?
Four years experience as an engineer? Was he a Wilmington trained (simulator) engineer?
Who was the supervisor who certified him qualified on the territory?
Where was supervision to ensure that there were no 'glitches' on this the first revenue trip via the new route?
I would hope that the NTSB would dig deeply in to his training regimen i.e. the duration of OJT, the 'pedigree' of the instructors etc.
Loss of situational awareness coupled with inexperience and poor training will certainly be the major factors in causing this disaster.
7j43k Euclid 7j43k I do wonder why it takes a year to do an investigation. Does anyone here have an idea why? Because there is a motive to do so much more than just determine the facts of the accident. Every government bureaucracy wants to grow larger, hire more people, raise salaries, build new offices, etc. So they are motivated to turn accident investigations into the largest productions possible. They are producing a drama about public safety. Dramas require holding information back and just teasing about it. That is why they begin with a kickoff news conference that cannot answer questions. Every answer is, “It’s too early to tell.” They want to grow, and that is why the time spent on investigations grows ever longer. That's certainly one possibilty. But I don't see any proof. Consider that "bureaucracies" don't "want". Not like single animals. But due to their structure and human behavior, it surely does look that way. After all, how many bureaucracies have intentionally shrunk? Anyway, that concept being established, I'd like to set it aside and see if other reasons come up. What, for example, would DOT say if asked? Well, I just sent an e-mail to a DOT employee asking that. We'll see what the response is. Ed
Euclid 7j43k I do wonder why it takes a year to do an investigation. Does anyone here have an idea why? Because there is a motive to do so much more than just determine the facts of the accident. Every government bureaucracy wants to grow larger, hire more people, raise salaries, build new offices, etc. So they are motivated to turn accident investigations into the largest productions possible. They are producing a drama about public safety. Dramas require holding information back and just teasing about it. That is why they begin with a kickoff news conference that cannot answer questions. Every answer is, “It’s too early to tell.” They want to grow, and that is why the time spent on investigations grows ever longer.
7j43k I do wonder why it takes a year to do an investigation. Does anyone here have an idea why?
Because there is a motive to do so much more than just determine the facts of the accident. Every government bureaucracy wants to grow larger, hire more people, raise salaries, build new offices, etc. So they are motivated to turn accident investigations into the largest productions possible. They are producing a drama about public safety. Dramas require holding information back and just teasing about it. That is why they begin with a kickoff news conference that cannot answer questions. Every answer is, “It’s too early to tell.” They want to grow, and that is why the time spent on investigations grows ever longer.
That's certainly one possibilty. But I don't see any proof.
Consider that "bureaucracies" don't "want". Not like single animals. But due to their structure and human behavior, it surely does look that way. After all, how many bureaucracies have intentionally shrunk?
Anyway, that concept being established, I'd like to set it aside and see if other reasons come up. What, for example, would DOT say if asked?
Well, I just sent an e-mail to a DOT employee asking that. We'll see what the response is.
Ed
Did you ask DOT why it takes a year to do an investigation? What did they say?
"I polished up the handle on the big front door...."
Johnny
EuclidWhen I refer to "facts," I just mean an explanation of the cause and all the facts that that entails.
Humpty Dumpty‘When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Cue the Arthur Sullivan music - there's a good song in this somewhere...
7j43kThe only facts I'm aware of that WE (the public) don't have is the identity and work history of the engineer, and the data from the cameras.
EuclidThe day after the wreck, the NTSB told us that they would interview the engineer in one or two days. They never told us that did not happen.
Sometimes it helps to read the preliminary report of 01/04/2018 instead of speculating.
Quote: As of the date of this report, the NTSB has not yet been able to interview either operating crewmember of the lead locomotive due to their injuries sustained in the accident.Regards, Volker
Euclid When I refer to "facts," I just mean an explanation of the cause and all the facts that that entails. Here are some explanatory facts that we do not yet have: The reason that the engineer did not make an emergency application of the air brakes. The train location when the engineer first realized the train was about to enter the curve. The engineer’s intent when he made an application of the independent brake at 81 mph. The exact cause for the train to derail. The presumption is that the excessive speed on the sharp curve derailed the train. While it is true that the speed was excessive, and that the train derailed at a tangent, we do not know that the two factors are not simply coincidental with the actual derailment cause being something unrelated like an equipment malfunction.
When I refer to "facts," I just mean an explanation of the cause and all the facts that that entails. Here are some explanatory facts that we do not yet have:
The reason that the engineer did not make an emergency application of the air brakes.
The train location when the engineer first realized the train was about to enter the curve.
The engineer’s intent when he made an application of the independent brake at 81 mph.
The exact cause for the train to derail. The presumption is that the excessive speed on the sharp curve derailed the train. While it is true that the speed was excessive, and that the train derailed at a tangent, we do not know that the two factors are not simply coincidental with the actual derailment cause being something unrelated like an equipment malfunction.
A "reason" is not a fact.
"Intent" is not a fact.
"The train location when the engineer first realized..." is not a fact.
The above cannot be facts because they cannot be independently verified. They are what the engineer reports. They may not be true. Hence: not-facts.
"Exact cause": That also will not be a fact. It will be the opinion of a lot of experts in the field examining the facts. An opinion is not a fact.
SD70Dude What does the general public gain by knowing the Engineer's name, apart from the ability to harass him?
What does the general public gain by knowing the Engineer's name, apart from the ability to harass him?
Still in training.
We know WHAT happened .. we are waiting on the WHY..
Euclid There are lots of facts we don't yet have.
There are lots of facts we don't yet have.
The only facts I'm aware of that WE (the public) don't have is the identity and work history of the engineer, and the data from the cameras. Interviews of the two workers in the cab are also missing, but they are not facts, exactly.
While I heartily agree that it's difficult to list facts one DOESN'T have, I'm still curious what other facts you feel are missing.
The day after the wreck, the NTSB told us that they would interview the engineer in one or two days. They never told us that did not happen. In fact, they may have interviewed the engineer a half-dozen times since then. They may have interviewed him an hour after the derailment. They never told us that they would tell us whether any interviews would be acknowledged to have happened, or what was learned.
The only control the public has over the NTSB is our perception of their credibility. They want that to be favorable.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
243129 I don't understand why the engineer has not been identified.
I don't understand why the engineer has not been identified.
Nor do I. Who is being protected and why?
Brandon Bostian was exposed soon after the Amtrak wreck. Why are they concealing this engineer's name? He should have been interviewed by NTSB within a few days. Who's hiding what?
Norm
Impatience leads to suspicion. Suspicion of motives is rapidly leading to formulation of largely delusional conspiracy theories, at least on this thread. Can't folks just wait for the investigative conclusions rather than weave a tapestry of unfounded speculations?
I don't think anyone would be complaining about the delay if they felt we had the facts now. There are lots of facts we don't yet have.
VOLKER LANDWEHR The role is not just finding the facts but investigate circumstances, find causes/ probable causes, make recommendations so that the same accident gets unlikely If it were just facts the Amtrak 501 derailment investigation would already be finished. The facts were published on 1/04/2018.
The role is not just finding the facts but investigate circumstances, find causes/ probable causes, make recommendations so that the same accident gets unlikely
If it were just facts the Amtrak 501 derailment investigation would already be finished. The facts were published on 1/04/2018.
OK. They had the facts by January 4, in less than 17 days.
So, for the next 348 days they will be thinking about and considering those facts.
That does seem like a long time to be doing that.
The role of the NTSB is defined in the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974.
The role is not just finding the facts but investigate circumstances, find causes/ probable causes, make recommendations so that the same accident gets unlikely.
They have to make transportation safer.
If it were just facts the Amtrak 501 derailment investigation would already be finished. The facts were published on 1/04/2018.Regards, Volker
7j43kI do wonder why it takes a year to do an investigation. Does anyone here have an idea why?
charlie hebdo ...the process is not supposed open to the public...
...the process is not supposed open to the public...
That kind of troubles me, as a citizen.
But there have been questions about the failure to promptly release factual information. Facts are a precursor to the process, not part of it. And they will not change if you wait a year.
I do wonder why it takes a year to do an investigation.
Does anyone here have an idea why?
I don't understand why the NTSB gives a public news conference at the onset or releases a final report to the public. Why do they make committments and reveal strategies to the public at the onset? Why tell us how long it will take?
I for one would prefer a thorough investigation, however long that takes. It is not a criminal or civil trial. Thus the process is not supposed open to the public, only the preliminary and final reports and supporting documents. The fact that some(one) on here seems impatient and continues to obsessively demur is irrelevant.
The details are private and the public has no right to know.
It's been several weeks since we've heard from our NTSB stalwarts. Who still can't convince the engineer that it would be really swell if he told them everything he remembered, even if doing so might put him in jail for a week. Or two.
It's been said that if you drag things out long enough, the public will get tired, and distracted by other things.
Like missiles being launched towards Hawaii. Wait a minute. Is that for real.......
243129 Norm48327 I side with Zug. One poster here seems to have all the answers even though he doesn't undestand the questiions. It is time for all of us to back off and let the KIA have his day until he exposes himself as a fraud. What goes around comes around and given time it will expose that poster for the fraud he is. Like others I suspect he will soon emerge uncder a new screen name. Who might that be Norm?
Norm48327 I side with Zug. One poster here seems to have all the answers even though he doesn't undestand the questiions. It is time for all of us to back off and let the KIA have his day until he exposes himself as a fraud. What goes around comes around and given time it will expose that poster for the fraud he is. Like others I suspect he will soon emerge uncder a new screen name.
I side with Zug. One poster here seems to have all the answers even though he doesn't undestand the questiions.
It is time for all of us to back off and let the KIA have his day until he exposes himself as a fraud.
What goes around comes around and given time it will expose that poster for the fraud he is.
Like others I suspect he will soon emerge uncder a new screen name.
Who might that be Norm?
Euclid But you said talking to the engieer would be far from necessary. I say it is essential.
Yup. That about sums it up.
7j43k Euclid 7j43k While having information from the engineer is very nice, I think it is far from necessary. It may not be possible, but I would not conclude that it is anything less than essential. If it's essential, as you sort of state with a double negative, and he won't talk, then there would consequently be no reason to continue the investigation. Because it's essential. In fact, if he had simply announced that he wasn't going to talk right after he got out of the cab, it would have saved a whole lot of money flying the NTSB crew in. Because they never would have gotten the essential part: his information. So, why continue wasting taxpayers' money? Ed
Euclid 7j43k While having information from the engineer is very nice, I think it is far from necessary. It may not be possible, but I would not conclude that it is anything less than essential.
7j43k While having information from the engineer is very nice, I think it is far from necessary.
It may not be possible, but I would not conclude that it is anything less than essential.
If it's essential, as you sort of state with a double negative, and he won't talk, then there would consequently be no reason to continue the investigation. Because it's essential.
In fact, if he had simply announced that he wasn't going to talk right after he got out of the cab, it would have saved a whole lot of money flying the NTSB crew in. Because they never would have gotten the essential part: his information. So, why continue wasting taxpayers' money?
Yes I am saying that it is essential, and it is not a double negative. You say that interviewing the engineer is far from necessary.
To me, essential means completely necessary. You say it is far from necessary, which means quite less than necessary. I say it is nothing short of essential.
Whether it is possible or not is another issue. It may not be possible. The engineer might develop amnesia or refuse to talk. But you said talking to the engieer would be far from necessary. I say it is essential.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.